Astronomica (Manilius) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2019. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Marcus Manilius was copied or moved into Astronomica (Manilius). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk · contribs) 18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
What a great topic. Happy to offer a review.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
This is a great article which I really enjoyed reading. I've no doubt I'll be happy to promote once a few fixes have been made. Josh Milburn ( talk) 19:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic; I'm happy that this is more than ready for GA status. It's very close to FAC-ready; I can offer a few more comments with an eye to FAC if that would be useful to you. Either way, I'm promoting now. Great work, and do feel free to message me if you nominate further articles in this vein; while I can't make any promises, I may be interested in reviewing them, too. Josh Milburn ( talk) 02:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know quite where to put this, but is it worth mentioning that Housman's work had a second edition, with addenda, corrigenda, etc? Also he published a one-volume editio minor. Goold too published a second edition of the Loeb, which I think he called a corrected edition. It took account of continuing work by others, especially a paper by W S Watt called Maniliana (1994, I think). Goold told me that the first printing had one of the biggest demands of any Loeb, so it is certainly true that it greatly increased accessibility. Anyone buying a Loeb should make sure of getting this edition. Seadowns ( talk) 13:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)I am afraid I can't reference any of this at present, as my books are ou t of reach. Seadowns ( talk) 13:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Subject to confirmation, I think the chronology is like this: 1992 Watt starts to read Manilius (I know this) 1994 Watt publishes his paper 1998 Goold's corrected edition comes out. This is the edition people should look out for. Goold was particularly abashed by his mistranslation of IV 3, pointed out by Watt. He also printed at least one of Watt's conjectures. A 1992 printing of the Loeb would, I think, be a reprint of the original to meet demand, without the later corrections.
I have now described the 1992 volume as a reprint. It is really misleading to call it a second edition. Goold would not have done so. (Incidentally, Goold told me that the star charts in his volume had been created by his brother.) Seadowns ( talk) 18:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The article deals with the mss. fully enough, but it does not quite bring out how over the centuries editors have repaired the text to make it intelligible. To some, this is the most interesting thing about Manilius. Seadowns ( talk) 09:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest a sentence like Seadowns ( talk) 18:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "It is thanks to the exertions of scholars, including some of the very greatest, over the years since the discovery of the manuscripts, that we are now able to read and comprehend Manilius reasonably coherently."
But I can't give a reference for it.
I agree with the reviewer above that "Harvard University Press" is not a suitable source for a quotation. The sentence sticks out as a bit amateurish. Nor should it be assumed that the writer of the blurb was Goold; it could have been any of their editors. I think the sentence should be omitted. Kanjuzi ( talk) 12:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
This poem is not an epic. It is a didactic poem, like De Rerum Natura, which is correctly so described by Wikipedia. I suggest that all the references to it as an epic should be altered. Seadowns ( talk) 16:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I still don't see the point of describing this as an epic, when it most certainly is not one. It is a didactic poem, like De Rerum Natura, to which it is a feeble response (impar congressus Achilli, as Goold says), and which is correctly so described in the Wikipedia article. Nor is the Metamorphoses an epic: it is, one could say, of a form sui generis, and therefore difficult to classify. To call this an epic is a vulgar journalistic error, which ought not to appear in an encyclopedia. The next error would be to call Virgil's Georgics an epic: if the Astronomica is an epic, why not they? I suggest that Aristotle's discussion of epic is worth consulting. Manilius himself at the beginning of Book 2 distinguished his work from epics such as Homer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadowns ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I would need to look at the context of Keith's remark, since the Aeneid is usually considered an imperial epic, and the author, Virgil, died in 19 BC, so it was some 30 years earlier than the Astronomica. I wonder if by some printer's or other error she put Manilius and Astronomica when she meant to put Virgil and Aeneid. My suggestion about Aristotle was just to help you personally, since it must be difficult for you to consider whether something is an epic or not, not knowing what an epic is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadowns ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This is somewhat unrelated, but @ Seadowns: do you have a source for this? I think it would make for an excellent addition, but it needs to have a source before it is added in.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I regret that I have not looked at this page for quite some time, so have missed the preceding remarks. I much regret also that words that I meant as a genial piece of banter, and would have taken as such if they had beeen directed at me, have given offence. I must be more careful in future. Meanwhile, I apologise. Seadowns ( talk) 13:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Astronomica_(Manilius)&action=edit§ion=1#
As to the epic question, clearly there are two meanings to "epic". The first is, very roughly, a long narrative poem, usually heroic. The second seems to be any very long poem. There is no doubt that the Astronomica is a long poem, so in this sense it can be called an epic without any question. But this is an unacademic and uninformative sense. As to the first, Aristotelian, sense, the Astronomica lacks all the necessary features. It is not a narrative and has no hero or heroics. As I said before, Manilius goes out of his way to claim that he is doing something quite different from Homer, and indeed any other poet.
As to Housman's remark on the Andromeda episode, it is a note to the relevant place in Book V. It actually reads "purpureus vix bene adsutus pannus", since his notes are in Latin. I don't know quite what counts as a "source" in Wikipedia, but I doubt if there is any published work where you will find it quoted, if it is not enough to have the actual words in front of one. At present I have access to Creech, but not to any other Manilian book, and I can't go round libraries, so I can't give the line number. (It would be prudent to verify what Housman said, since I have to rely on memory.) Seadowns ( talk) 10:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
In that case perhaps the translation, if one is needed, should be something like "a sewn-on patch of far from the best purple", rather than what I have given. Seadowns ( talk) 15:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I notice that someone has given an alternative translation of Housman's note, but I think that Housman was translating the common derogatory expression "purple patch". It is the bit that is sewn on that is purple, not the cloth it is sewn to. (Johnson warned against purple patches when he advised that one should reread one's writing and strike out anything that seemed particularly fine.) I would therefore suggest that it should revert to a translation that brings out this intention of AEH's. Seadowns ( talk) 11:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I have retranslated Housman's words about the Andromeda. It is just impossible that purpurae is to be taken as dative. The pannus is the Andromeda story, which Housman goes on to compare unfavourably with Ovid's treatment of the legend. Purpurae is a genitive of quality: the purple patch is not even very good purple. Seadowns ( talk) 22:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
A W Verrall was less indulgent than Housman, calling it "a poor mixture of childish rhetoric and utter commonplace" (p. 630 in J E Sandys's "A Companion to Latin Studies", Cambridge UP 1910). Seadowns ( talk) 11:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Under "Style", would it not be worth mentioning Housman's remark that he was "the one Latin poet who excelled even Ovid in verbal point and smartness"? (Edition of Book I, 1903, p.xxi). Seadowns ( talk) 08:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Later: I would still urge that this notable judgment of Housman's should be included. It would counteract what seems to me an impression given by the article that Manilius is more important than he actually is, or would be thought by many. There is also a tendency among the scholars quoted to do what Perry Mason used to call "taking a button and sewing a vest on it". Seadowns ( talk) 22:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Another comment. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, probably. I wanted to get away from the impression that this is only a comparatively modern appraisal. Seadowns ( talk) 11:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Astronomica (Manilius). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I seem to remember that there was also another sense of "decans", but I am unable to verify it at present, since I cannot get at my copy of Goold, which I would need to find the place. It is a long time since I read through Housman, whom I can only get on line at present, with too much labour.-- Seadowns ( talk) 15:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Astronomica (Manilius) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2019. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Marcus Manilius was copied or moved into Astronomica (Manilius). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk · contribs) 18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
What a great topic. Happy to offer a review.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
This is a great article which I really enjoyed reading. I've no doubt I'll be happy to promote once a few fixes have been made. Josh Milburn ( talk) 19:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic; I'm happy that this is more than ready for GA status. It's very close to FAC-ready; I can offer a few more comments with an eye to FAC if that would be useful to you. Either way, I'm promoting now. Great work, and do feel free to message me if you nominate further articles in this vein; while I can't make any promises, I may be interested in reviewing them, too. Josh Milburn ( talk) 02:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know quite where to put this, but is it worth mentioning that Housman's work had a second edition, with addenda, corrigenda, etc? Also he published a one-volume editio minor. Goold too published a second edition of the Loeb, which I think he called a corrected edition. It took account of continuing work by others, especially a paper by W S Watt called Maniliana (1994, I think). Goold told me that the first printing had one of the biggest demands of any Loeb, so it is certainly true that it greatly increased accessibility. Anyone buying a Loeb should make sure of getting this edition. Seadowns ( talk) 13:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)I am afraid I can't reference any of this at present, as my books are ou t of reach. Seadowns ( talk) 13:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Subject to confirmation, I think the chronology is like this: 1992 Watt starts to read Manilius (I know this) 1994 Watt publishes his paper 1998 Goold's corrected edition comes out. This is the edition people should look out for. Goold was particularly abashed by his mistranslation of IV 3, pointed out by Watt. He also printed at least one of Watt's conjectures. A 1992 printing of the Loeb would, I think, be a reprint of the original to meet demand, without the later corrections.
I have now described the 1992 volume as a reprint. It is really misleading to call it a second edition. Goold would not have done so. (Incidentally, Goold told me that the star charts in his volume had been created by his brother.) Seadowns ( talk) 18:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The article deals with the mss. fully enough, but it does not quite bring out how over the centuries editors have repaired the text to make it intelligible. To some, this is the most interesting thing about Manilius. Seadowns ( talk) 09:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest a sentence like Seadowns ( talk) 18:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "It is thanks to the exertions of scholars, including some of the very greatest, over the years since the discovery of the manuscripts, that we are now able to read and comprehend Manilius reasonably coherently."
But I can't give a reference for it.
I agree with the reviewer above that "Harvard University Press" is not a suitable source for a quotation. The sentence sticks out as a bit amateurish. Nor should it be assumed that the writer of the blurb was Goold; it could have been any of their editors. I think the sentence should be omitted. Kanjuzi ( talk) 12:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
This poem is not an epic. It is a didactic poem, like De Rerum Natura, which is correctly so described by Wikipedia. I suggest that all the references to it as an epic should be altered. Seadowns ( talk) 16:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I still don't see the point of describing this as an epic, when it most certainly is not one. It is a didactic poem, like De Rerum Natura, to which it is a feeble response (impar congressus Achilli, as Goold says), and which is correctly so described in the Wikipedia article. Nor is the Metamorphoses an epic: it is, one could say, of a form sui generis, and therefore difficult to classify. To call this an epic is a vulgar journalistic error, which ought not to appear in an encyclopedia. The next error would be to call Virgil's Georgics an epic: if the Astronomica is an epic, why not they? I suggest that Aristotle's discussion of epic is worth consulting. Manilius himself at the beginning of Book 2 distinguished his work from epics such as Homer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadowns ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I would need to look at the context of Keith's remark, since the Aeneid is usually considered an imperial epic, and the author, Virgil, died in 19 BC, so it was some 30 years earlier than the Astronomica. I wonder if by some printer's or other error she put Manilius and Astronomica when she meant to put Virgil and Aeneid. My suggestion about Aristotle was just to help you personally, since it must be difficult for you to consider whether something is an epic or not, not knowing what an epic is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadowns ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This is somewhat unrelated, but @ Seadowns: do you have a source for this? I think it would make for an excellent addition, but it needs to have a source before it is added in.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I regret that I have not looked at this page for quite some time, so have missed the preceding remarks. I much regret also that words that I meant as a genial piece of banter, and would have taken as such if they had beeen directed at me, have given offence. I must be more careful in future. Meanwhile, I apologise. Seadowns ( talk) 13:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Astronomica_(Manilius)&action=edit§ion=1#
As to the epic question, clearly there are two meanings to "epic". The first is, very roughly, a long narrative poem, usually heroic. The second seems to be any very long poem. There is no doubt that the Astronomica is a long poem, so in this sense it can be called an epic without any question. But this is an unacademic and uninformative sense. As to the first, Aristotelian, sense, the Astronomica lacks all the necessary features. It is not a narrative and has no hero or heroics. As I said before, Manilius goes out of his way to claim that he is doing something quite different from Homer, and indeed any other poet.
As to Housman's remark on the Andromeda episode, it is a note to the relevant place in Book V. It actually reads "purpureus vix bene adsutus pannus", since his notes are in Latin. I don't know quite what counts as a "source" in Wikipedia, but I doubt if there is any published work where you will find it quoted, if it is not enough to have the actual words in front of one. At present I have access to Creech, but not to any other Manilian book, and I can't go round libraries, so I can't give the line number. (It would be prudent to verify what Housman said, since I have to rely on memory.) Seadowns ( talk) 10:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
In that case perhaps the translation, if one is needed, should be something like "a sewn-on patch of far from the best purple", rather than what I have given. Seadowns ( talk) 15:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I notice that someone has given an alternative translation of Housman's note, but I think that Housman was translating the common derogatory expression "purple patch". It is the bit that is sewn on that is purple, not the cloth it is sewn to. (Johnson warned against purple patches when he advised that one should reread one's writing and strike out anything that seemed particularly fine.) I would therefore suggest that it should revert to a translation that brings out this intention of AEH's. Seadowns ( talk) 11:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I have retranslated Housman's words about the Andromeda. It is just impossible that purpurae is to be taken as dative. The pannus is the Andromeda story, which Housman goes on to compare unfavourably with Ovid's treatment of the legend. Purpurae is a genitive of quality: the purple patch is not even very good purple. Seadowns ( talk) 22:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
A W Verrall was less indulgent than Housman, calling it "a poor mixture of childish rhetoric and utter commonplace" (p. 630 in J E Sandys's "A Companion to Latin Studies", Cambridge UP 1910). Seadowns ( talk) 11:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Under "Style", would it not be worth mentioning Housman's remark that he was "the one Latin poet who excelled even Ovid in verbal point and smartness"? (Edition of Book I, 1903, p.xxi). Seadowns ( talk) 08:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Later: I would still urge that this notable judgment of Housman's should be included. It would counteract what seems to me an impression given by the article that Manilius is more important than he actually is, or would be thought by many. There is also a tendency among the scholars quoted to do what Perry Mason used to call "taking a button and sewing a vest on it". Seadowns ( talk) 22:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Another comment. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, probably. I wanted to get away from the impression that this is only a comparatively modern appraisal. Seadowns ( talk) 11:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Astronomica (Manilius). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I seem to remember that there was also another sense of "decans", but I am unable to verify it at present, since I cannot get at my copy of Goold, which I would need to find the place. It is a long time since I read through Housman, whom I can only get on line at present, with too much labour.-- Seadowns ( talk) 15:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)